The Law Classroom

Facts

In August 1928, May Donoghue visited a café in Paisley, Scotland, where her friend purchased a bottle of ginger beer for her. The opaque bottle, manufactured by David Stevenson, allegedly contained the remains of a decomposed snail. After consuming much of the drink, Donoghue discovered the snail fragments, fell ill, and suffered shock and gastroenteritis. She sued Stevenson for damages, claiming that he owed her a duty of care despite no direct contractual relationship between them.

Issue

The core question before the House of Lords was whether a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer, even in the absence of a contract. Specifically:

• Could Donoghue recover damages from Stevenson without privity of contract?
• Should the law recognize a general duty to avoid acts or omissions likely to injure one’s neighbor?

Decision

By a 3–2 majority, the House of Lords held that Stevenson owed Donoghue a duty of care. Lord Atkin’s landmark “neighbor principle” established that individuals must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could foreseeably injure others who are closely and directly affected by their conduct. This principle departed from the strict privity requirement and created a foundation for modern negligence law.

Outcome

Donoghue v Stevenson fundamentally reshaped tort law:

• It abolished the necessity for contractual privity in personal injury claims against manufacturers.
• It introduced the neighbor principle, guiding courts to determine duty of care based on foreseeability and proximity.
• It paved the way for subsequent negligence cases, such as Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990), which refined the three-part test for duty of care.

Understanding Donoghue v Stevenson is crucial. It not only marks the genesis of negligence but also illustrates how principles evolve based on judicial discretion.